Also known as: nuisance doctrines · nuisance · private nuisance · public nuisance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine imposing liability for a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. The invasion must be intentional and unreasonable or otherwise actionable under negligence or strict liability rules. Liability runs only to those holding property rights in the affected land.
Nathan Nguyen owns a home next to a large hog farm operated by Nova Pharmaceuticals. The farm sprays liquid manure that produces strong odors and flies crossing onto Nguyen's property and preventing normal outdoor use. The invasion satisfies the nontrespassory interference element of the doctrine, exposing the farm to liability for private nuisance.
Nora Nash purchased coastal land for residential development when state law permitted building. A later regulation barred all construction to protect dunes. Because the prohibition would have qualified as a nuisance under background principles existing at purchase, the doctrine supplies a complete defense to Nash's takings claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nicholas Nunez owns Grand Central Terminal and seeks to build a tall office tower above it. New York City's landmark law prevents the addition and reduces the parcel's development value. The doctrine of nuisance supports the restrictions as a valid exercise of police power that does not constitute a taking under the multi-factor test.
Neil Nair develops Sun City retirement community adjacent to Spur Industries' existing feedlot. The feedlot produces odors and flies that substantially interfere with residents' use and enjoyment of their homes. The doctrine authorizes an injunction against the feedlot despite its prior operation, though damages may also be awarded to the feedlot owner.
Natasha Nielsen owns homes in a neighborhood targeted for a private redevelopment project approved by the city. The city condemns the properties to transfer them to a developer for increased tax revenue. The doctrine of nuisance does not bar the taking because the project serves a public purpose under the broad interpretation of public use.
Nigel Nelson owns oceanfront property whose dry sand area will be covered by state-sponsored beach restoration. The added sand changes the mean high-water line and affects future accretion rights. The doctrine of nuisance supplies the background principle that defeats Nelson's claim of a judicial taking under the Fifth Amendment.
The plaintiff must show a nontrespassory invasion of the interest in private use and enjoyment of land that is either intentional and unreasonable or otherwise actionable under negligence or strict liability rules.
Supporting sources
Compensation is not required if the prohibited use was already barred by background principles of nuisance or property law in effect when the owner acquired the land.
Supporting sources
No. Compliance with permits or regulations does not automatically immunize conduct from nuisance liability when the interference remains unreasonable and causes substantial harm to neighboring land use.
Supporting sources
A private plaintiff may recover only upon showing special harm different in kind from that suffered by the general public. Governmental entities may enforce public nuisance claims directly.
Supporting sources
A regulation eliminating all economically beneficial use is a per se taking unless the restricted activity was already prohibited under preexisting nuisance or property principles at the time of acquisition.
Supporting sources
…the erection of a building of a particular kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a particular thing is a nuisance, is to be determined, not by an abstract consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality.…